QUESTION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS
SUBJECTED TO ANY FORM OF DETENTION OR IMPRISONMENT

QUESTION OF
ENFORCED OR INVOLUNTARY DISAPPEARANCES

Special process on missing persons in the territory of the
former Yugoslavia

Report submitted by Mr. Manfred Nowak, expert member of the Working
Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, responsible for
the special process, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Commission resolution
1995/35

Introduction

1. As a result of armed conflicts and the "ethnic cleansing"
policy, the number of missing persons in the territory of the
former Yugoslavia again increased during the year 1995. In
Bosnia and Herzegovina the fate of more than 27,000 persons,
mainly Bosnians of Muslim origin, remains unknown. Subsequent
to the Bosnian Serb seizure of Srebrenica, some 8,000 Bosnians
of Muslim origin are reported missing, the majority of whom could
be presumed to have been victims of mass execution. It is further
reported that 725 Bosnian Serbs and 834 Bosnian Croats
are missing. In Croatia, although some 200 cases were clarified
there are still more than 2,800 persons missing as a result
of the armed conflict between the Croatian forces and the Yugoslav
National Army in 1991. It is reported that subsequent to the operations
"Flash" and "Storm" launched by the Croatian
Army, more than 100 persons have disappeared. It is feared
that the great majority of missing persons are buried in more than 300 suspected
mass graves in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

2. With the signing of the Basic Agreement on Eastern Slavonia
on 12 November 1995 in Erdut and the Dayton Peace
Agreement on Bosnia and Herzegovina on 14 December 1995
in Paris as well as with the establishment, by the Security Council,
of the United Nations Transitional Administration for Eastern
Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (UNTAES) and the multinational
implementation force (IFOR) there is for the first time since
the outbreak of the armed conflict in 1991 the sincere hope that
a lasting peace can be achieved. In both agreements, respect for
human rights plays an important role. Respect for human rights
means on the one hand the prevention of future human rights violations
and on the other hand the investigation of past human rights violations,
the prosecution of the perpetrators of crimes against humanity,
and the clarification of cases of some 30,000 missing persons.

3. The special process dealing with missing persons in the territory
of the former Yugoslavia was established by the Commission on
Human Rights in 1994 as a joint mandate of the expert, in his
capacity as member of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary
Disappearances, and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of
human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia (resolutions
1994/39 and 1994/72). In accordance with the expert's recommendation
contained in his first report (E/CN.4/1995/37), the Commission,
in resolution 1995/35, transformed the special process into an
independent mandate entrusted to the expert.

4. The present report covers the expert's activities during the
period under review and analyses the situation of missing persons
in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and the former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia on the basis of individual cases the special process
has received and transmitted as well as information provided by
Governments, non­governmental organizations, relatives of
missing persons and other sources. Particular emphasis has been
given to the possibilities of tracing missing persons in compliance
with the provisions of the Basic Agreement on Eastern Slavonia
and the Dayton Peace Agreement on Bosnia and Herzegovina, on the
burning issue of mass graves and the efforts of the expert to
establish a multilateral commission on missing persons. The report
concludes with a number of specific recommendations on how to
determine in a more efficient manner the fate and the whereabouts
of some 30,000 missing persons in the territory of the former
Yugoslavia.

I. MANDATE AND METHODS OF WORK

5. Subsequent to the expert's report to the Commission at its
fifty­first session, and owing to the importance of the issue
of missing persons in the territory of the former Yugoslavia,
the Commission on Human Rights adopted resolution 1995/35
entitled "Special process dealing with the problem of missing
persons in the territory of the former Yugoslavia" in which
it requested the expert to continue his efforts with a view to
determining the fate of the thousands of missing persons and relieving
the suffering of their families. The special process is the first
mandate established by the Commission on Human Rights which is
of both a country­specific and a thematic character.

6. The expert decided that the special process would continue
its previous methods of work, i.e. those of the Working Group
on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, adapted to the specific
situation of the former Yugoslavia (see E/CN.4/1995/37). In this
context, the special process continues to be of a strictly humanitarian
nature, functioning as the channel of information between the
sources reporting the missing persons and those allegedly held
responsible, or who may be in the position to provide information
concerning the fate of those reported missing. The task of the
special process terminates when the whereabouts of the missing
persons are located and confirmed by the source. The special process
is not mandated to involve itself in determining the accountability
of the forces reported by the source as perpetrators.

7. The special process keeps the source confidential whenever
it is an individual, a family member or a relative. The non­governmental
organizations reporting cases of missing persons are kept confidential
upon request. Sources are requested to provide certain minimum
information including the name and surname of the victim, date
and place of disappearance, and forces allegedly held responsible,
in order for the special process to consider and transmit the
case.

8. With respect to the situation in the former Yugoslavia and
the break up of one country into several States, the mandate of
the special process also covers disappearances which occurred
during international armed conflicts, regardless of whether the
victim was a combatant or a civilian. Hence, the expert decided,
as of the establishment of the special process in 1994, to use
the broader term "missing" rather than "disappeared".
Owing to the specificity of the political situation in the former
Yugoslavia, and the existence of de facto authorities fighting
the government forces inside the recognized borders of a State
and therefore allegedly responsible for a number of reported cases
of missing persons, the expert had to deal with these de facto
authorities without implying any official recognition by the United Nations
in order for the special process to function efficiently.

II. ACTIVITIES OF THE EXPERT

A. Consultations

9. During the period under review, the expert held regular consultations
with the representatives of the Governments of Croatia and Bosnia
and Herzegovina, with representatives of various non­governmental
organizations and intergovernmental organizations, the media and
others who might provide information on the fate and whereabouts
of missing persons in the former Yugoslavia. The cooperation between
the special process and other United Nations entities and
the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC),
which was established in 1994, continued on a regular basis. During
his visit to Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina in early 1996,
the expert for the first time received support and cooperation
from the local Serb authorities in Eastern Slavonia and high­level
representatives of the Republika Srpska.

10. The continuing effort of the expert to establish dialogue
and a relationship based on cooperation with the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) have, however, not yet met
with success. Although the Government has at least accepted responsibility
only for the cases of missing persons which occurred during the
armed conflict in 1991 between the Yugoslav National Army and
the Croatian forces, it did not respond to any of the 1,041 cases
which were transmitted by the expert to that Government during
the years 1995 and 1996. Neither did it respond to any of the
requests for information regarding missing persons in Bosnia and
Herzegovina. Moreover, the Government of the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia never honoured the expert's various requests to
conduct a mission to that country.

11. Initially, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's explanation
for its uncooperativeness was that the special process was a joint
mandate with that of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of
human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia (E/CN.4/1995/37,
para. 15). In this respect, the expert, after consultations
with the Special Rapporteur, decided to submit his report directly
to the Commission on Human Rights. Nevertheless during 1995, the
Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
persisted in non-cooperation and in a letter dated 9 February 1995,
reacted strongly to the expert's report. The Commission, in paragraph 3
of its resolution 1995/35, urged the Government of the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to allow the expert
"to visit Belgrade in order to discuss concrete aspects of
cooperation, and to undertake maximum efforts to cooperate by
disclosing all relevant available information and documentation
in order finally to determine the fate of the thousands of missing
persons and to alleviate the suffering of their relatives".
Moreover, the General Assembly at its fiftieth session
adopted resolution 50/193, in paragraph 22 of which
it urged "all parties, in particular the Government of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), to cooperate
with the special process on missing persons in the territory of
the former Yugoslavia ... by disclosing information
and documentation on inmates in prisons, camps and other places
of detention". The expert deeply regrets the attitude of
the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro).

12. The expert can carry out his difficult mandate efficiently
only if he receives the full support and cooperation of all Governments
involved. As has been stressed repeatedly, and as clearly follows
from the relevant resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights
as well as the methods of work, the special process is of a strictly
humanitarian nature aimed only at assisting all families, regardless
of their ethnic origin, in their efforts to establish the fate
and whereabouts of their missing relatives. In the spirit of the
Basic Agreement on Eastern Slavonia and the Dayton Peace Agreement
on Bosnia and Herzegovina, the expert once again requests the
Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
to change its position, to invite him to visit Belgrade, to provide
him with all relevant information and to support his initiative
to establish a multilateral commission on missing persons.

B. Visits

13. The expert, together with a staff member of the Centre for
Human Rights, conducted a mission to Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina
from 27 January to 4 February 1996. The main
objectives of the mission were to continue his cooperation with
all Governments and non­governmental organizations, to establish
a dialogue and cooperative relations with the Bosnian Serb authorities
and representatives of the local Serbs in Eastern Slavonia, to
achieve proper protection of alleged mass graves and to propose
to all parties, in the aftermath of war and in the process of
the implementation of peace, the establishment of a multilateral
commission with a view to determining the fate of the missing
persons throughout the former Yugoslavia.

14. In Croatia, the expert held meetings with the Deputy Prime
Minister, the Deputy President of the Parliament and the President
of the State Commission on Missing Persons as well as with Croatian
and Serb non­governmental organizations dealing with missing
persons. He also travelled to Eastern Slavonia, where he
met with officials of UNTAES and the local Serbian Commission
of Exchange of Prisoners and Missing Persons, and visited the
mass grave in Ovcara which was discovered in 1992.

15. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the expert held meetings in Sarajevo
with the representative of the Prime Minister and the President
of the State Commission on Exchange of Prisoners and Missing Persons.
He also established contacts and discussed the issue of missing
persons with IFOR officials and the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

16. Moreover, the expert met with the President of the Parliament
and Ministers of the Republika Srpska in Pale, with whom he established
relations based on cooperation. In the territory of the Republika
Srpska, he also travelled to Srebrenica and Banja Luka where
he met with both mayors, and to the region of Prijedor where he
visited suspected mass graves in the iron mines of Ljubija and
Tomasica. In Bratunac, he visited two sites of mass graves in
Glogova reportedly containing the victims of the fall of Srebrenica
to Bosnian Serb control in July 1995.

17. In the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the expert visited
Mostar, Livno, Bugojno and Jajce. He met with family members of
missing Bosnian Croats and persons of Muslim origin, with the
Presidents of the Bosnian Croat Commission for the Exchange of
Prisoners and Missing Persons and the Muslim Commission for Exchange
of Prisoners and Missing Persons, and with the Mayor of Jajce.
In Bare (near Jajce) he participated in the excavation of a burial
site which was conducted by Bosnian Croats. In both countries
the expert held meetings with the representatives of the Office
of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR),
ICRC and the United Nations Civil Affairs.

18. The expert wishes to thank the Governments and officials of
the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
the Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
for their availability and hospitality, their cooperation and
their readiness to participate on a multilateral commission on
missing persons as proposed by the expert. He also extends his
thanks to IFOR for its assistance during his mission to the regions
of Banja Luka and Prijedor, to the United Nations Civil
Affairs for its logistical assistance and to the human rights
officers of all field offices of the Centre for Human Rights.

C. Communications relating to individual cases of missing
persons

19. During his field visits, the expert received allegations and
lists concerning a total of more than 30,000 missing persons
in the territory of the former Yugoslavia.

20. During his mission to the Republic of Croatia in 1994, the
expert was provided with a list of 2,764 missing persons which
he transmitted to the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(Serbia and Montenegro) in the same year. The special process
received 1,282 cases through Croatian non­governmental
organizations of which 1,063 contained the required information
and were considered, processed and transmitted to the authorities
allegedly held responsible. Sources were informed of those cases
not complying with the criteria of the special process (e.g. the
subject was reported dead) and asked for further information on
those lacking the minimum required information. The Government
of Croatia communicated to the special process information received
from the Croatian Commission on Missing Persons and Detainees
concerning nine of these cases whose "mortal remains were
taken over and identified". In each case, the source was
informed and given a period of six months to comment, refute or
confirm the information. Since no observation was received during
this period, in accordance with the methods of work of the special
process, these cases were considered clarified.

21. Eleven of these cases concerned ethnic Serbs who reportedly
were detained in 1991 by Croatian forces and whose whereabouts
remain unknown. Therefore, these cases were transmitted to the
Government of Croatia which responded that the Croatian authorities
had initiated investigations with a view to determining their
fate. No further communication was received on this matter, and
therefore as of the date of writing their whereabouts remain unknown.
Subsequent to operation "Storm", the special process
received 48 cases of missing persons who were allegedly detained
by Croatian forces during and after the operation. These cases
were transmitted to the Government of Croatia under the urgent
action procedure, requesting it to initiate investigations to
determine the fate of the victims. During his mission to the
Republic of Croatia in early 1996, the expert received from a
non­governmental organization a list of 92 missing Serbs
who disappeared during and after operation "Storm".

22. It is reported that a total of some 27,000 persons are
missing in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Bosnian State Commission
of Exchange of Prisoners and Missing Persons presented a tabulated
list of 24,742 missing persons while the Bosnian Croat Commission
of Exchange of Prisoners and Missing Persons list comprises 834
missing persons. However, owing to the existing problems and

difficulties of the war situation in the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, family members were not always in a position to report
their missing persons directly to the special process. Most of
the individual cases of missing persons were reported to the Centre
for Human Rights field offices in Bosnia and Herzegovina. These
cases were submitted by the family members or relatives of missing
persons. Moreover, a number of cases were reported by Croatian
non-governmental organizations. All the cases providing the required
information were considered and transmitted to the authorities
allegedly responsible. However, the special process did not receive
any communications concerning these victims' whereabouts. Subsequent
to the seizure of Srebrenica and Zepa by the Bosnian Serb forces
and the disappearance of thousands of persons, the expert, in
a letter to the Bosnian Serb de facto authorities expressed
his intention in August 1995 to travel immediately to Srebrenica
and Zepa and to visit the detention camps in that region. The
Bosnian Serb de facto authorities did not reply to this letter
either.

23. However, during his mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina from
31 January to 3 February 1996, consequent
on his meeting in Pale with the representatives of the Republika Srpska,
the expert travelled to Srebrenica and visited, inter alia,
the football stadium, the former headquarters of the United Nations
Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in Potocari as well as two alleged
sites of mass graves in Glogova (near Bratunac). At a later date,
the expert, escorted by IFOR, visited the mines of Ljubija and
Tomasica (in the region of Prijedor) which are, according to reports,
locations of two alleged mass graves.

24. In January 1996, two cases of disappearances were transmitted
under the urgent action procedure to the Government of the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. One case concerned the driver
of the President of the political party VMRO-DPMNE (Democratic
Party for Macedonian National Unity) who was arrested by the police
in Skopje. The second case concerned a person who was arrested
by the police in Ohrid. The Government provided information on
these two cases which the special process will communicate to
the sources.

III. SITUATION OF MISSING PERSONS IN CROATIA

A. Armed Conflict in 1991

25. A total of 1,041 individual cases considered by the special
process, of which 640 were transmitted in 1995 to the Government
of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro),
were related to the armed conflict between, on the one hand, the
Croatian forces and, on the other hand, the Yugoslav National
Army (JNA) and Serb paramilitary groups such as Arkan's "Tigers",
Seselj's "White Eagles" and Martic's forces. The armed
confrontation between the two communities of Serbs and Croats
living in Croatia started in early March 1991 when Pakrac (ex-Sector
West) fell under Serb control. On 3 May 1991 the JNA
intervened in Borovo Selo (Sector East) and afterwards took an
active role in the conflict. In July 1991, after tense fighting
in East Slavonia, Erdut, Dalj and Aljmas were captured by the
Serb paramilitary groups and the JNA. The city of Vukovar became,
as of August 1991, the target of heavy shellings and attacks
of the JNA and the Serb paramilitary groups, namely the "Tigers"
and the "White Eagles". On 18 November 1991,
after 86 days of resistance and heavy fighting, the Croatian
National Guard in Vukovar finally surrendered.

26. The 640 cases were received from the Association of Families
of Imprisoned and Missing Defenders of Croatia and transmitted
in 1995 to the authorities allegedly responsible. For most of
the cases the families explained the situation in which the victim
had disappeared. These descriptions give an overall view of the
situation between July 1991 and February 1992, the period
during which the reported cases occurred, with the exception of
three cases which were reported to have occurred in May 1992,
July 1992 and September 1992 respectively. However,
the majority of the cases occurred between August and November 1991,
during the culminating period of the conflict.

27. The majority of the victims were men and civilians, roughly
14 per cent of the reported cases being women. In only
30 cases was it mentioned that the victims were members of
the Croatian Army or paramilitary forces. The men were mainly
young or middle­aged who were, allegedly, detained in order
to prevent them from fighting, and also to use them for forced
labour. The ages ranged from 17 to 70 years. The victims
comprised mainly Croats. A total of 28 Serbs, Hungarians,
Ruthenians, Ukranians, Slovenians, Czechs and Gypsies have also
been reported missing. Similarly to the cases considered in 1994,
the majority of the missing persons (55 per cent) reported
disappeared from United Nations Protected Area (UNPA) East,
and in particular from Vukovar and its hospital. When the city
of Vukovar fell, the JNA and the paramilitary forces captured
the hospital. It is, however, reported that the director of the
hospital and the commander of the JNA had agreed to evacuate the
Croatian patients to Croatian­held territory. Nevertheless,
on 20 November 1991, only women, children and the elderly
were transported to Croatian­held territory. The other patients
were, allegedly, transferred to the JNA barracks, and their whereabouts
remain unknown.

28. It is further reported that on 18 November 1991
the JNA entered the Evangelical Church in Vukovar, forced all
the worshippers out and gathered them in the "Velepromet"
fairground. Women, children and the elderly were separated from
men of military age. The men stayed behind and no information
on their fate has been disclosed, while the others were transported
in buses to Sid (Serbia). Moreover, 32 persons were reported
missing from the town of Borovo Naselje who were, allegedly, taken
to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).
Missing persons were reported from other localities of the UNPA
East including Bogdanovci, Berak, Sotin, Erdut and Aljmas.

29. Cases of missing persons reported from the former UNPA North
constituted 27 per cent of the considered cases
the majority of which were reported to have occurred in Glina
and Petrinja, Hrvatska Kostajnica and Slunj.

30. Former UNPA South accounted for 4.7 per cent of
the considered cases. Cases of missing persons which occurred
in this sector were mainly from the localities of Zaton, Gospic,
Gracac and Zadar.

31. Cases of missing persons were also reported to have occurred
in the former Sector West, constituting 3.6 per cent
of the considered cases. The majority of these persons disappeared
from localities such as Bosanska Gradiska, Pakrac, Daruvar
and Dezanovac.

32. Missing persons who disappeared in Croatian­held territory
are 3.5 per cent of the total number of considered
cases. It is reported that a Slovenian, who was reported by the
source to be a "marine saboteur" in the Croatian Navy,
disappeared during an attack against the JNA marine forces in
Dubrovnik. Two Croatians who disappeared from Hum­Vocin
were, reportedly, shown on Belgrade television. Ethnic Serbs were
reported missing from this region and detained by the Croatian
forces. Their cases were transmitted to the Government of Croatia
with a view to determining their fate.

33. No exact information is available on the whereabouts of the
missing persons. However, in some cases witnesses testified having
seen the victims after their arrest or abduction. According to
these testimonies, which the expert had no means to verify, the
majority of the victims from UNPA East were, allegedly, either
transported to Ovcara (near Vukovar) or transferred to Sremska Mitrovica,
Aleksinac and Nis in Serbia to undertake forced labour. A number
of the victims from former UNPA North were, allegedly, first detained
in Glina detention centre, Petrinja prison, Knin prison or transferred
to Manjaca detention camp in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is reported
that the victims from former UNPA South were mainly taken to the
"Marko Oreskovic" factory in Licki Osik (UNPA South)
or the Licki Osik cinema which were used as detention centres,
and the missing persons from former UNPA West were, allegedly,
either detained in Bucje camp or sent to "Bojceta" farm
labour camp.

34. In October 1992 the Ovcara (Sector East) mass grave was
discovered by forensic physicians and the existence of other mass
graves in Sectors East and West were confirmed by international
monitors. In this respect, the expert fears that a considerable
number of the persons who were transported to Ovcara and many
others of those reported missing were victims of summary executions.

35. The expert undertook a mission to Eastern Slavonia on 30 January 1996,
and visited Vukovar and the mass grave site in Ovcara. In recent
years this site has been under constant guard by the United Nations
forces. The commander of the United Nations observation post
established for the sole purpose of guarding the site assured
the expert that there had never been any attempt to open to otherwise
disturb the mass grave.

36. Subsequent to operation "Storm" the Croatian authorities
located 51 suspected mass graves. In the former Sector North 26
mass graves were identified of which 10 were excavated. Monitors
of the European Union and other international organizations were
only present during part of the excavations. According to the
Croatian State Commission for Tracing Missing Persons and Detainees,
until the present a total of 135 bodies had been exhumed of which
110 could be identified. From the two mass graves near Petrinja
(50 km south of Zagreb) which were discovered and excavated, 39 bodies
were exhumed of which 17 were soldiers while the 22 others were
civilians who were allegedly killed in September 1991 by the JNA
and Serb paramilitary groups when the latter took control of the
town. Moreover, it is said that 21 bodies of elderly civilians
and one soldier were exhumed from another grave discovered in
the vicinity of the former JNA barracks outside Petrinja. It is
further reported that 24 bodies were exhumed in Saborsko and 18
in Pakrac. However, owing to the advanced stage of decomposition,
it is very difficult to identify the bodies, particularly in the
case of soldiers who were about the same age and wore the same
uniforms. During their meeting in Zagreb on 29 January 1996, the
President of the Croatian Commission for Tracing Missing Persons
and Detainees gave the expert a list of 112 cases of missing Croats
whose fate was determined after operations "Flash" in
May 1995 and "Storm" in August 1995.

37. The joint commission for the questions of missing persons,
refugees and displaced persons, established on 12 February 1994,
did not meet during the period under review. However, the Governments
of the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(Serbia and Montenegro) decided to deal with the issue of missing
persons at the level of a working group. The working group's first
meeting was on 15 February 1995 in Belgrade, followed by a meeting
on 13 April in Zagreb. The third meeting was held on 22 June 1995
in Belgrade. However, representatives of the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) did not attend the meeting
which was convened on 18 August 1995 in Zagreb and, subsequently
the working group ceased functioning. The outcome of the working
group's meetings was that the Yugoslav authorities provided information
according to which 24 persons listed as missing were alive and
either living in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro) or in the UNPAs, and undertook the obligation to provide
death certificates for 82 identified dead bodies from Vukovar.
Pursuant to this agreement 66 death certificates were presented
but, could not be considered as legal documents because they were
incomplete. Consequently, the whereabouts of these 66 persons
remain unknown. The Yugoslav authorities also delivered the mortal
remains of 11 persons of which 7 were identified, and therefore
the cases of these persons were considered clarified.

B. Operations "Flash" and "Storm"

38. Recent cases of disappearances reported to the special process
occurred mainly during and after the Croatian offensive operations
"Flash" and "Storm" which were launched to
capture the Serb-held territories (UNPAs West, South and North)
within the internationally recognized frontiers of Croatia.

39. Operation "Flash" started on 1 May 1995 in western
Slavonia and lasted for four days. Despite the Cessation of Hostilities
Agreement between the warring parties which was negotiated by
the United Nations on 3 May 1995, the fighting continued till
4 May 1995 when in late afternoon the Croatian Serb forces surrendered.
It is reported that some 1,300 Croatian Serb males were transferred
to detention centres in Varazdin, Pozega and Bjelovar for interrogation,
and the fate of many of them remains unknown. It is further reported
that some 8,000 civilians, mainly women, children and the elderly,
fled the fighting and sought refuge in Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Banja Luka, Nova Topola and Dubica. Consequently, the majority
of families were separated, some of their members leaving and
the others remaining or detained. The same day the President of
the Security Council issued a statement expressing deep concern
at reports that the human rights of the Serb population of western
Slavonia were being violated.

40. Operation "Storm" was launched on 4 August 1995.
The offensive lasted for four days, and according to reports human
rights abuses and violations of fundamental freedoms of civilians
were committed by the Croatian Army. It was also reported that
Serb men were separated from the elderly, women and children and
taken away by Croatian officials for interrogation; the whereabouts
of many of them remain unknown. It was further reported that soldiers
systematically looted and burned houses in localities they captured.
As one witness stated after the fall of the city of Knin on 5
August 1995, "sectors of the city were ablaze and [there
were] dead bodies in the streets". Consequently, local ethnic
Serbs felt their security to be at stake and thousands fled to
north and west Bosnia and Herzegovina and to the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). It is estimated that 95 per cent
of the population of Sectors South and North (i.e. around 200,000
persons) left their home towns, while some thousands were reported
blocked in their villages owing to the constant shelling of the
roads and attacks by Croatian troops. This situation also resulted
in the separation of families, some members leaving and others
staying behind, each trying to determine the others' fate.

41. International observers who assessed human rights abuses committed
in Sectors South and North, discovered hundreds of dead bodies
in over 20 villages, and have reported the existence of mass
graves in both sectors. Therefore, the expert fears that a number
of the persons reported missing might be victims of these killings.
The expert expressed his concern to the Government of the Republic
of Croatia.

42. The 48 cases reported to the special process following the
Croatian offensive operation "Storm" consisted of Serbs
and persons of Muslim origin. The majority were men. However,
a two-month-old baby was reported missing with both his parents.
Persons of Serb origin are reported to have disappeared during
the assault, namely during 4 to 6 August 1995, mainly from localities
in Sector North such as Dvor, Glina and Pakovac. A number of them
are said to have disappeared on the highway on their way to Serbia.
The cases comprised civilians as well as combatants, members of
Serb paramilitary formations. Many of these combatants have, allegedly,
disappeared since their surrender to the Croatian Army. A considerable
number of cases of missing persons concerned elderly and invalid
persons who stayed in their villages rather than flee the Croatian
troops.

43. The persons of Muslim origin reported missing were all among
those who sought refuge in the refugee camp of Kuplensko in Sector
North subsequent to the defeat of Abdic's forces and the recapturing
of Velika Kladusa (Bosnia and Herzegovina) by the Bosnian Army.
The dates of the disappearances of these persons varied between
late August and late September 1995. An agreement was signed on
8 August 1995 between the Governments of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina
and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to repatriate refugees
within 24 hours. Sources fear that these missing persons were
subjected to measures taken by the Croatian authorities in accordance
with that agreement.

44. According to the sources, in the village of Mogoric, near
Gospic (120 km south of Zagreb), a number of civilians were, allegedly,
detained in a collective centre in the elementary school. The
Croatian police have denied access to the centre and the detainees,
and therefore since that date the whereabouts of the detainees
remain unknown.

45. During the expert's visit to Croatia in February 1996, the
Government provided information on the whereabouts of only six
of those missing persons. In compliance with the methods of work
of the special process, this information will be forwarded to
the sources for either their confirmation or refutation. The expert
also received a list of 92 persons who went missing during or
after operation "Storm". Furthermore, there are allegations
of some 200 cases of missing persons subsequent to operation "Flash".

C. Basic Agreement on Eastern Slavonia

46. On 12 November 1995, after a period of intense diplomatic
activity, the Government of the Republic of Croatia and the local
Serb community signed the Basic Agreement on the region of Eastern
Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium in which they requested
the Security Council to establish, for a period of 12 months,
a transitional administration to govern the region, assist in
the demilitarization, ensure that it was possible for the refugees
and displaced persons to return, organize elections and facilitate
the return of the former UNPA East to Croatian control. Paragraph
6 of the Basic Agreement states that the highest levels of internationally
recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms shall be respected
in the region. Paragraph 11 envisages the establishment of an
international commission to monitor human rights in the region.

47. On 15 January 1996, in its resolution 1037 (1996), the Security
Council decided to establish a new peace-keeping operation, with
both military and civilian components, under the name United Nations
Transitional Administration for Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and
Western Sirmium (UNTAES). The Secretary­General appointed
the American diplomat and air force general Jacques Klein
as the Transitional Administrator with the overall authority over
the civilian and military components of UNTAES. According to paragraph
3 of the resolution, the demilitarization of the region, as provided
in the Basic Agreement, shall be completed within 30 days from
the date the Secretary-General informs the Council, based on the
assessment of the Transitional Administrator, that the military
component of UNTAES has been deployed and would be ready to undertake
its mission. It is expected that the demilitarization would be
completed by April or May 1996. In paragraph 21, the Security
Council stressed that "UNTAES shall cooperate with the International
Tribunal [for the former Yugoslavia] in the performance of its
mandate, including with regard to the protection of the sites
identified by the Prosecutor". This provision refers, above
all, to the mass grave in Ovcara which the Prosecutor needs to
excavate on order to secure evidence in relation to his indictment,
on 9 November 1995, of three senior officers of the Yugoslav National
Army suspected of the mass killing of 261 captive non­Serb
victims who were taken away from Vukovar hospital on 20 November
1991 and have been missing ever since. According to information
received from various sources, it is not to be excluded that other
missing persons from the region are also buried in the Ovcara
mass grave which has been guarded by United Nations forces. The
expert, therefore, agreed with the Prosecutor of the International
Criminal Tribunal to cooperate in the excavation of the mass grave
with a view to exhuming and identifying all the existing mortal
remains therein.

48. On 17 November 1995, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the
Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia signed
in Dayton, Ohio, an agreement on cooperation in tracing missing
persons as an auxiliary agreement to the Dayton Peace Agreement;
however, this agreement must still be ratified by both parties.
According to the agreement the parties undertake to exchange,
without delay, complete and precise information about missing
persons and to set up a joint commission for the tracing of missing
persons. The commission established under the agreement held its
first meeting on 7 December 1995 in Zagreb. The second meeting,
which was scheduled for 3 January 1996 in Belgrade, was postponed
by the Yugoslav authorities to 25 January. According to information
received from the Croatian authorities, the results of the two
meetings were far from satisfactory.

IV. SITUATION OF MISSING PERSONS IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

A. General

49. The phenomenon of missing persons is one of the many calamities
resulting from the armed conflict and "ethnic cleansing"
in Bosnia and Herzegovina. According to various sources, the total
number of missing persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina is some 27,000.
The Bosnian State Commission for Exchange of Prisoners and Missing
Persons presented in January 1996 a list of 24,742 persons of
Muslim origin who have gone missing since the outbreak of the
armed conflict between the Bosnian Government and the Bosnian
Serb de facto authorities in 1992 of whom some 17,000 were reported
missing during the same year. Furthermore, 2,145 Bosnians of Muslim
origin were reported missing as a result of the armed conflict
with Croatian forces in 1993. It is further reported that 725
Bosnian Serbs and 834 Bosnian Croats are missing. Only in relatively
few cases did the special process receive sufficiently detailed
information on individual cases to register and transmit them
individually in accordance with its methods of work and required
criteria. Consequently, the majority of cases were submitted in
tabulated lists.

B. Armed conflict between the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovinaand
the Bosnian Serb de facto authorities

50. Subsequent to the declaration of independence of the Republic
of Bosnia and Herzegovina on 3 March 1992, the Serbian Democratic
party proclaimed on 27 March 1992 the Serbian Republic of
Bosnia and Herzegovina. Throughout the month of March 1992, there
were clashes between the communities in Sarajevo. As from 7 April
1992, when Sarajevo came under intense artillery fire by the JNA,
the war broke out all over the country. It is reported that between
May and July 1992 thousands of civilians of Muslim origin were,
allegedly, killed while thousands more were detained in concentration
camps and a considerable number deported from western Bosnia and
Herzegovina. By the end of summer 1992 some 40,000 Muslims had,
allegedly, been killed in eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina. According
to the Government's record, the majority of those whose whereabouts
remain unknown are civilians who were mainly abducted from home
and only 17 were soldiers or combatants who were captured during
the fighting. People were reported missing specifically from the
area of Sarajevo (i.e. Vogosca, Ilijas, Hadzici, Ilidza,
Ahatovici), Podrinje (i.e. Foca, Visegrad, Zvornik, Bratunac),
east Herzegovina (i.e. Kalinovik), Bosanska Krajina (i.e. Kozarac,
Prijedor, Klujuc, Sanski Most, Kotor Varos, Skender Vakuf, Jajce)
and Semerija (i.e. Derventa, Bijeljina, Brcko, Bosanski Brod,
Modrica).

51. Most of the individual cases of missing persons which were
transmitted during 1995 to the Bosnian Serb authorities occurred
during the period March to September 1992. It is reported, for
example, that more than 160 persons were allegedly abducted from
Travnik (north of Sarajevo) on the same date and transported to
Grabovica (north-west of Sarajevo) where they were detained in
the elementary school. The majority of these cases concerned Muslim
men. The age range was between 23 and 75 with the exception of
one 12-year-old boy. Only a few women and ethnic Croats were reported
missing. The JNA and various Serb paramilitary groups such as
the "White Eagles", Jadranko's groups and the "Tigers"
were mentioned by the sources as responsible for these disappearances.

52. It is reported that on 19 June 1992 the Serb paramilitary
group in Rogatica (east of Sarajevo) separated Muslim men and
women and took the men to the "Slandara" factory near
Rogatica. It was further reported that in May 1992 the Bosnian
Serb forces looted and destroyed houses in Hadzici (Sarajevo suburbs)
and abducted people. The latter were last seen detained in a garage
which was used as a prison for the circumstances. A number of
the missing persons are said to have been taken to detention centres
in Knin (former Sector South). According to the sources, a number
of the missing persons were deported to Serbia to the detention
camp in the Vranje. Among the missing women, some were reported
to have been seen undertaking forced labour near Visegrad (east
of Sarajevo). Many of the persons missing from Prijedor and hundreds
abducted from Trnoplje were later seen in the Omarska detention
centre, and are suspected to have been transferred to the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to undertake forced
labour in the Aleksinac mines. In September 1995, mass graves
were discovered near Krasulje in northwest Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The Government has exhumed 540 bodies of persons who were
presumably detained at Manjaca concentration camp in 1992. In
January 1996, a mass grave containing 27 bodies of Bosnian Muslims
was discovered near Sanski Most; the victims were reportedly killed
in July 1992 during their transfer from Sanski Most to Manjaca
concentration camp (near Banja Luka). It is further reported that
other mass graves exist, for example in Kasindolska (near Sarajevo),
Novoseoci (near Rogatica), Trnoplje, Keraterm and Omarska, as
well as in the iron mines of Ljubija and Tomasica near Prijedor.

53. It is reported that the surviving victims were either detained
in prisons such as Mali Logor in Banja Luka, in Hadzici, the primary
school in Modrica, Borike near Rogatica, Vlasenica prison, in
Doboj, or transferred to detention camps in the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) such as Mitrovo Polje (Uzice
area) and Banja Koviljaca, and to army barracks in Belgrade and
Nilsic and Tivat in Montenegro. Furthermore, the State Commission
on Exchange of Prisoners has identified prisons and detention
centres under the Government's control in Sarajevo, Zenica, Tarcin,
Tuzla, Bihac, Vares and Travnik.

54. During the meeting with the expert, the President of the Bosnian
Serb Commission on Exchange of Prisoners and Missing Persons
stated that 1,500 Bosnian Serbs were missing from Sarajevo,
the majority of them from central Bosnia and Herzegovina. Moreover,
he stated that the whereabouts of 140 Bosnian Serb combatants
abducted from Bosnia and Herzegovina and transferred to Croatia
remain unknown.

C. Armed conflict between the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina
and the Bosnian Croat de facto authorities

55. Many disappearances occurred in the context of the armed conflict
between the Bosnian Croat forces and the government army. Tension
between the two communities intensified in April 1993, and on
15 April 1993 fierce fighting broke out. Towns such as Zenica,
Vitez, Konjic, Kiseljak and Jablinca were constantly shelled,
and houses were looted and burned and a number of mosques were
destroyed. According to reliable sources, civilians were victims
of systematic violations of human rights. In May 1993, sporadic
fighting was concentrated in Mostar and the surrounding area.
It is reported that the Bosnian Croats were determined to have
Mostar as the capital of the self­proclaimed Republic of
Herzeg-Bosna and therefore were forcing out civilians of Muslim
origin. A blockade was reportedly imposed on the 55,000 Muslims
remaining in the eastern part (Muslim sector) of the city and
the population forced to live in conditions of extreme deprivation,
especially of food and medicine. According to United Nations officials,
in May 1993 some 200 civilians of Muslim origin were detained
by Bosnian Croat forces in and around Mostar. On 26 June 1993,
the Bosnian Croats and the Bosnian Serbs launched a joint attack
on a number of towns in central Bosnia and Herzegovina including
Maglaj, Zepce and Zavidovici. On 31 August 1993 the Bosnian Croats
released 450 prisoners held at detention centres near Medjugorje,
and in September 1993, a Bosnian Croat official admitted
that the living conditions of some 4,000 Bosnian Muslims who had
been detained in June and July 1993 and were being held in three
centres near Medjugorje were poor and did not comply with the
provisions of international humanitarian law.

56. The President of the Security Council in his statement of
3 February 1994, expressed the commitment of the Security
Council to "consider serious measures if the Republic of
Croatia fails to put an immediate end to all forms of interference
in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina". Subsequently,
the Government and the Bosnian Croat forces signed on 23 February
1994 a general cease-fire agreement which took effect one day
later. On 18 March 1994, representatives of the Governments of
Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia signed the
Washington Accord on the creation of the Federation of Bosnia
and Herzegovina between the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina
and the Bosnian Croats. As a result, on 19 March 1994, 857 prisoners
were exchanged, of whom 500 were Muslim detainees who had been
held by the Bosnian Croats at a camp near Mostar and 357 were
Bosnian Croats held by the Bosnian Army in detention centres near
Bugojno and eastern Mostar. However, the fate of 26 Bosnian Croats
who were, allegedly, transferred in November 1993 from the "Stadion"
detention centre in Bugojno to an unknown destination, remains
undetermined. Moreover, the whereabouts of some 120 Bosnian
Muslims who were detained in a school in Prozor also remain unknown.
On 3 November 1994 the Bosnian Army and the Bosnian
Croat forces regained control of the town of Kupres in central
Bosnia and Herzegovina where they discovered and excavated one
mass grave. A total of 37 bodies were exhumed of which 34 were
identified. However, the fate of 855 Bosnians of

Muslim origin comprising 281 soldiers of the Bosnian Army and
574 civilians, of whom 261 were from Mostar and the others from
localities such as Capljina, Stolac, Tomislavgrad, Neum and Travnik,
remains undetermined. The whereabouts of 662 Bosnian Croats (combatants
and civilians) from Mostar also remain unknown.

57. During his recent mission, the expert met in Mostar and Livno
with family members of Bosnian missing persons of Muslim origin
as well as with the relatives of the missing Bosnian Croats from
Bugojno. The expert also participated in the excavation of a burial
site in Bare (near Jajce).

58. Thirteen cases concerned male combatants of Muslim origin
between 23 and 30 years old, who were captured by the Bosnian
Croat forces on 10 May 1993 at the Bosnian Army headquarters in
the city of Mostar located in the former Civil Engineering "Vranica"
building. They were seen in October 1993 at the Bosnian Croat
detention centre, in the cellar of the Mostar school of mechanical
engineering, and their whereabouts are unknown since then. It
is also reported that the capture was filmed and shown on the
Croatian television programme "A Picture by a Picture".
In a letter dated 5 December 1995, the office of the President
of the Federation replied that "the question about the fate
of persons enlisted in your letter will be solved within the complete
exchange of prisoners and dead bodies in accordance with the agreements
reached in Dayton."

59. Three cases concerned one Bosnian Serb and two Bosnians of
Muslim origin who were taken away from their homes (in Mostar
west) by Bosnian Croat forces. The Federation authorities have
not yet communicated any information on their whereabouts.

60. One case concerned the former Vice-President of the Federal
Parliament of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
member of the Party for Democratic Action (SDA) and member of
the Parliament of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who
was, allegedly, detained in June 1993 by Bosnian Croat forces
(HVO 111th brigade) in the town Zepce in central Bosnia and Herzegovina.
It is further reported that he was later handed over to the Bosnian
Serb forces and was reportedly detained in one of the detention
centres near Doboj. His name was on the list of persons to be
exchanged on 24 December 1995. Sources confirmed his release.

D. Srebrenica and Zepa

61. In July 1995 the United Nations safe areas were attacked and
seized by Bosnian Serb forces, and thousands of persons were reported
missing. It is estimated that some 5,000 persons fled Srebrenica
before it fell under Bosnian Serb control and the whereabouts
of more than 3,000 persons were separated from their families
by the Bosnian Serb forces during and after the attack remain
unknown. However, owing to the lack of a coordinated survey, it
is impossible for the time being to know the exact number of missing
persons.

62. The Security Council in its resolution 819 (1993) of 16 April
1993 declared "Srebrenica and its surroundings as a safe
area which should be free from any armed attack or any other hostile
act". By Security Council resolution 824 (1993), Sarajevo,
Tuzla, Gorazde, Zepa and Bihac were also declared safe areas.

63. Nevertheless, the Bosnian Serb forces attack on Srebrenica
started on 6 July 1995 and on 11 July 1995 the city fell
under Bosnian Serb control. It is reported that as the Bosnian
Serb forces moved into the city, the inhabitants of Srebrenica
sought refuge in Potocari, 5 km north of Srebrenica, where the
UNPROFOR compound was situated. Potocari was also seized on 12 July 1995.
Bosnian Serb forces transported women, children and the elderly
to the confrontation line west of Srebrenica from where these
people had to walk 6 Km to reach Kladanj in government-held territory.
Military-age and able men of between 15 and 70 were allegedly
either taken to Bratunac or assembled in the football stadium
at Nova Kasaba. It is reported that more than 100 men were taken
to Konjevic Polje. On 13 July 1995, a medical convoy transporting
wounded civilians was allegedly stopped by the Bosnian Serb forces
who took 30 persons out of the convoy whose whereabouts remain
unknown. According to the displaced persons' testimonies, civilians
were subjected to summary executions and more than 2,000 men who
had surrendered in the village of Kravica were shot in groups
of 5 to 10. Moreover, dead bodies were seen in Potocari, and on
the way between Bratunac and Konjevic Polje. A number of women
unaccounted for were reportedly prevented from travelling to government­held
territory.

64. These allegations of mass executions were followed by the
discovery of mass graves in various localities. Aerial photographs
taken by the United States Government show in Nova Kasaba
two areas of "disturbed earth" one measuring 100 metres
by 50 metres and the other 100 metres square. Other aerial photographs
show three areas of "disturbed earth" in the vicinity
of Karakaj. There are also strong indications of the existence
of other mass graves near Cerska, Burnice and Bratunac. On 1 February
1996, the expert visited two of these sites in Glogova, near Bratunac.

65. Regrettably, a number of the persons reported missing from
the region must, therefore, be presumed to have been victims of
mass executions. According to the displaced persons' testimonies,
missing persons also could have been sent to undertake forced
labour or detained for eventual exchange of prisoners. According
to reliable sources, the Bosnian Serb forces as well as paramilitary
groups such as the Drina Wolves, Seselj Militia, Specialna Policia,
"White Eagles", "Tigers" and Krajina Serbs
were the main units conducting the fighting and responsible for
the expulsion of civilians from Srebrenica and the subsequent
massacres.

66. With regard to Zepa, which fell under Bosnian Serb control
on 25 July 1995, the Bosnian Serb forces, foreign
mercenaries (i.e. Russians and Greeks) and the above-mentioned
paramilitary groups are said to have been involved in the seizure
of the town. It is reported that women, children and the elderly
were evacuated in buses bearing license plates of the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia, while the men were kept behind. Some 1,500
men were reported to have fled with their families to the surrounding
woods. It is also said that a number of men who fled joined the
Bosnian Government Army. As in Srebrenica, there is no exact number
of missing persons from Zepa, but it is estimated to be less than
that of Srebrenica.

E. Efforts of the Central Commission

67. All warring parties signed on 31 December 1994 a four-month
cease-fire agreement. In compliance with point 8 of this agreement
the parties engaged to work continuously and simultaneously on
processes for the early release of persons detained in relation
with the conflict, as well as for the provision and cross-checking
of all available information on persons unaccounted for. The first
meeting of the Central Commission set up under the agreement was
held at Sarajevo Airport on 12 January 1995, and as a result 100
prisoners were released, 50 by the Bosnian Government and 50 by
the Bosnian Serb de facto authorities. By 11 April 1995,
the Central Commission had met six times. However, owing to the
lack of cooperation of all parties the Commission has not, thus
far, produced the expected results. Even though the agreement
had expired and the fighting had resumed, the Commission held
its eleventh meeting on 27 September 1995 at Sarajevo Airport
with representatives of Bosnian Government and the Bosnian Serb
de facto authorities. The Bosnian Croats were not present. As
a result of the meeting, an exchange of prisoners took place on
29 September 1995 near Tuzla at the Satorovici front line; 103 detainees
were released by the Bosnian Serb de facto authorities and the
Bosnian Government released 66 detainees.

68. It is expected that in the framework of the Dayton Agreement
the Central Commission will continue its efforts to release all
detainees and to locate the fate of all persons unaccounted for.
In this respect, initially 900 persons from the three sides
who were to be released were registered by the ICRC. On 24 December
1995 the Bosnian Government and the Bosnian Serb de facto
authorities exchanged prisoners at Sanski Most. It is reported
that the Government released 10 Bosnian Serb soldiers in exchange
for the member of the Parliament of the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina. Moreover, on the same day 244 other persons were
released at the separation line between the Government-held territory
and the Bosnian Serb-held territory near Gracanica in central
Bosnia and Herzegovina. The exchange comprised 130 Bosnian Muslims
and 114 Bosnian Serbs who had, reportedly, been detained in prisons
in Zenica, Travnik and Tuzla. On 10 January 1996, a number of
Bosnian Muslims who had been detained in Banja Luka and Manjaca
were exchanged for 30 Bosnian Serb soldiers at the separation
line near Sanski Most. However, the exchange of prisoners which,
according to the Dayton Agreement, had to be terminated by 19 January
1996 is still continuing. To date, some 800 prisoners have been
exchanged and released by the three parties. Of the remaining
100 registered persons, roughly 50 per cent are suspected of war
crimes and the three parties refuse to release such persons before
conducting investigations on their cases. In February 1996, the
ICRC discovered 88 Bosnian Serbs held in detention by the government
authorities in Tuzla. On 15 February 1996, 11 of them were released.
As at 16 February 1996, some 100 prisoners have yet to be released.

F. The Dayton Agreement

69. During the period 1 to 20 November 1995, negotiations to reach
a peaceful settlement to the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina
were held, under the auspices of the Contact Group, at Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. On 20 November 1995, the Presidents
of the Republics of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia
agreed on the terms of a General Framework Agreement and a total
of 12 annexes thereto. On 14 December 1995 the Dayton Peace Agreement
was officially signed in Paris and entered into force upon signature.
The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina
was signed by the Presidents of the Republics of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Croatia and Serbia, and the three parties welcomed and endorsed
the arrangements made in the annexes. Article VII of the General
Framework Agreement explicitly recognizes that the observance
of human rights and the protection of refugees and displaced persons
are of vital importance in achieving a lasting peace. Annex 6
(Agreement on human rights) and annex 7 (Agreement on refugees
and displaced persons) were signed by the President of the Republic
of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and representatives of its two entities,
the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska.
According to article I of annex 6, the parties shall secure to
all persons within their jurisdiction the highest level of internationally
recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms, above all those
provided in the European Convention on Human Rights and its Additional
Protocols. By virtue of article II, paragraph 2, of annex 4 (Constitution
of Bosnia and Herzegovina), the rights set forth in the European
Convention shall apply directly in Bosnia and Herzegovina and
have priority over all other law. Annex 6 foresees the establishment
by the parties of a Commission on Human Rights comprising an Ombudsman
and a Human Rights Chamber which is authorized, inter alia,
to decide on individual complaints. Moreover, in compliance with
the provisions of annex 7, a Commission for Displaced Persons
and Refugees is to be established to decide on claims for the
return of real property.

70. Annex 7, article V, refers to the problem of missing persons
and states that the parties shall provide information through
the tracing mechanisms of the ICRC on all persons unaccounted
for and cooperate fully with the ICRC in its efforts to determine
the identities, whereabouts and fate of those unaccounted for.
In compliance with this provision, the ICRC has established a
working group of experts comprising representatives of the parties
and the High Representative, as well as a number of observers.
Moreover, the parties, in accordance with annex 6, article XIII,
will invite the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and
other competent international human rights monitoring mechanisms
to monitor closely the human rights situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
They agree to provide these mechanisms fully and effectively with
the necessary facilities, assistance and access. The mandates
of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in
the territory of the former Yugoslavia and the special process
dealing with missing persons in the territory of the former Yugoslavia
established by the Commission on Human Rights, respectively, in
1992 and 1994 are typical examples of specialized human rights
monitoring mechanisms complying with this provision.

71. While international implementation of the military aspects
of the Dayton Peace Agreement is entrusted to IFOR composed of
ground, air and maritime units from the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) and non-NATO nations (annex 1-A), the coordination
of all civilian aspects of the Peace Agreement as well as the
liaison with IFOR are entrusted to the High Representative (annex
10). At the Peace Implementation Conference held in London on
8 and 9 December 1995, the former Swedish Prime Minister
and European Union special negotiator, Mr. Carl Bildt, was appointed
High Representative. In its resolution 1031 (1995) of 15 December
1995, the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter
of the United Nations welcomed and supported the Peace Agreement,
authorized the establishment of IFOR, decided to establish a United
Nations civilian police force envisaged in annex 11 of the Peace
Agreement, and agreed to the designation of Mr. Bildt as High
Representative. In its resolution 1035 (1995) of 21 December 1995,
the Council decided to establish the International Police Task
Force (IPTF) for the period of one year. In addition to its military
tasks, IFOR has the right, as spelled out in annex 1-A, article
VI, paragraph 3, of the Agreement, "to fulfil its supporting
tasks, within the limits of its assigned principal tasks and available
resources, and on request, which include the following: (a) to
help create secure conditions for the conduct by others of other
tasks associated with the peace settlement ... ."

72. In reaction to reports of alleged disturbance of the suspected
mass graves in the iron mine of Ljubija, near Prijedor, on 12
January 1996 the expert, acting in accordance with the above-mentioned
provisions of the Dayton Peace Agreement, requested the High Representative
to take the necessary action so that IFOR, without delay, would
take control of the mines and guard them against any action taken
by the Bosnian Serb forces. On 15 January 1996, during a meeting,
in Stockholm, of experts for the preparation of elections in Bosnia
and Herzegovina, the High Representative told the expert that
forwarding the expert's request to IFOR would constitute interference
with the conduct of the military operations or the IFOR chain
of command as defined in annex 10, article II, paragraph 9, of
the Agreement. Consequently, on 16 January 1996, the expert
addressed his request directly to the Commander of IFOR, Admiral
Leighton Smith. He raised the matter again at the first meeting
of the Human Rights Task Force on 26 January 1996 in Brussels.

73. On 23 January 1996, the IFOR Commander responded that owing
to its limited mandate and military resources, IFOR was not in
a position to guard suspected mass graves. However, that did not
mean that IFOR was not concerned about war crimes and reports
of mass graves. During his visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina in
January/February 1996, the expert discussed this matter with IFOR
officials. It was agreed that IFOR would provide the same assistance
and cooperation to the special process as to the International
Criminal Tribunal. The expert received full support and assistance
from IFOR during his visit to Banja Luka and Prijedor.

V. EXCAVATION OF MASS GRAVES

74. The suspected mass graves have become an increasingly important
issue from the emotional, humanitarian, legal and political points
of view. Reference in that regard is made to Commission resolution
1994/31 of 4 March 1994 entitled "Human rights
and forensic science".

75. Some 50 mass graves have been located in Croatia and according
to various reports and sources of information, up to 300 mass
graves may exist in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The pressure created
by the various actions undertaken by the families of missing persons
on the respective Governments and the international community
to excavate mass graves and identify the mortal remains, i.e.
the hunger strike of the mothers of the missing persons in Zagreb
in June 1995 or the attacks on the office of the ICRC in Tuzla
by family members of the missing persons from Srebrenica in January
1996, is continuously increasing. With the strong media interest
and alleged attempts of disturbance of mass graves, the unrestricted
access to these sites may result in tainting evidence and therefore
hampering the efforts of the war crimes investigators' efforts
as well as the efforts of those searching for missing persons.

76. Consequently, mass graves have to be located, guarded and
excavated without delay, in a professional, impartial and well-coordinated
manner. Various authorities have a legitimate interest in excavating
mass graves. In the first place, the Governments concerned have
the right to investigate suspected criminal acts within their
jurisdiction and may also have an interest in excavating mass
graves in order to trace missing persons. In this respect, the
Croatian authorities, after seizure of the former UNPAs West,
North and South in 1995, identified more than 50 mass graves containing
victims of the armed conflict in 1991 and have started excavation.
Similarly, authorities of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
started excavating mass graves in late 1995 and early 1996 near
Kupres and Jajce, in territories formerly held by the Bosnian
Serb forces. Moreover, the International Criminal Tribunal, in
order to secure evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity,
needs to excavate mass graves; however, for this purpose it might
be sufficient to open a mass grave and exhume a limited number
of bodies. Following the indictment on 9 November 1995 of three
commanders of the Yugoslav National Army suspected of having removed
261 persons from the Vukovar hospital and arbitrarily killing
them in November 1991, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal
Tribunal has a legitimate interest in excavating the mass grave
in Ovcara which has been guarded for the last several years by
United Nations forces. The same holds true for suspected mass
graves in the region of Srebrenica and Prijedor. For the international
organizations and mechanisms mandated to trace missing persons,
such as the ICRC and the special process, it is necessary to exhume
and identify all the mortal remains in an excavated mass grave.

77. Annex 1-A, article IX, paragraph 2, is the only provision
of the Dayton Peace Agreement explicitly referring to mass graves.
It establishes an obligation for each Party to permit graves registration
personnel of the other Parties "to recover and evacuate the
bodies of deceased military and civilian personnel of that side,
including deceased prisoners". Since this provision does
not include international organizations, the question that arises
is whether the ICRC and the expert in charge of the special process
have the right to initiate and carry out excavations of mass graves.
In accordance with annex 7, article V, of the Dayton Peace Agreement,
the Parties shall also cooperate fully with the ICRC "to
determine the identities, whereabouts and fate of the unaccounted
for". The expert's mandate is of a similar nature. The Commission
on Human Rights stressed the fact that the main objective of the
special process was to provide the families with information on
the fate of their missing relatives.

78. Unfortunately, there are indications that the majority of
some 30,000 missing persons in the territory of the
former Yugoslavia might be victims of arbitrary killings and buried
in mass graves. Fifteen years of experience of the Working Group
on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances show that the relatives
of the missing persons constantly keep up the hope that their
loved ones are alive until it has been proven beyond a reasonable
doubt that they have died. With respect to the missing persons
in the former Yugoslavia, the only way of proving death would
be to excavate mass graves and to exhume and identify all the
mortal remains. The primary responsibility for carrying out these
tasks remains with the authorities under whose jurisdiction a
suspected mass grave falls. The main task of the competent international
organizations and mechanisms is to try to ensure that the mass
graves are excavated in a professional and impartial manner. If
the authorities concerned are not willing to carry out the excavation,
then the task will fall to international organizations and mechanisms,
including the special process.

79. The excavation and exhumation of mass graves has to be well
prepared and coordinated among the various authorities concerned,
including the International Criminal Tribunal, the ICRC, the expert
in charge of the special process and the local authorities. The
Commission on Human Rights, in paragraph 6 of resolution
1995/35 requested the Secretary-General "to continue providing
the special process with the necessary resources so that it can
perform its functions continuously and expeditiously". However,
the costs of excavating mass graves might go beyond the resources
allocated to the special process from the United Nations regular
budget. The expert, therefore, requests the Commission to consider
this issue and authorize the necessary resources from the regular
budget or establish a special voluntary fund. The task of coordinating
the excavations with other organizations and mechanisms might
be facilitated by the High Commissioner for Human Rights in cooperation
with the High Representative established by the Dayton Agreement
and the Transitional Administer of UNTAES. Such a coordination
mechanism could be the Joint Civilian Commission (annex 10, art.
II, para. 2, Dayton Agreement), the Human Rights Task Force established
by the High Representative in conformity with paragraph 33 of
the conclusions of the London Peace Implementation Conference
of 8 and 9 December 1995, or the multilateral commission on missing
persons proposed by the expert.

VI. PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH A MULTILATERAL COMMISSION ON MISSING
PERSONS

80. The main responsibility for tracing missing persons in the
territory of the former Yugoslavia rests with the Governments
and the local authorities which actually hold relevant information
on the fate and whereabouts of the missing persons. International
organizations and mechanisms such as the ICRC and the special
process can only offer their services and assist the Governments
and the local authorities in their tracing efforts. In fact, a
number of local, regional, national and bilateral commissions
have been established and have carried out important tasks such
as registering tracing requests, collecting relevant data on missing
persons and clarifying cases, i.e. locating and exchanging prisoners.
With respect to missing persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the
ICRC has recently established a working group of experts in compliance
with annex 7, article V, of the Dayton Agreement. The Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and the Republic
of Croatia on 17 November 1995 signed the Agreement on Cooperation
in Tracing Missing Persons and established a joint commission.

81. Taking into account that the actual tracing results of the
various bilateral commissions established hitherto were far from
satisfactory, that real progress can only be achieved if all parties,
including the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro),
commit themselves to disclose all information on the whereabouts
of the missing persons, and that the excavation of mass graves
is a huge and urgent task for which a concerted effort by all
parties is needed, the expert, during his recent visit to Croatia
and Bosnia and Herzegovina, proposed the establishment of a high-level
multilateral commission on missing persons composed of: a representative
of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Federation of Bosnia
and Herzegovina, the Republika Srpska, the Republic of Croatia,
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the
High Representative (annex 10, Dayton Agreement), the Ombudsperson
(annex 6, Dayton Agreement),

the Transitional Administrator of UNTAES, a representative of
the ICRC and the expert in charge of the special process dealing
with missing persons in the territory of the former Yugoslavia.
The commission would have a mandate to mediate between the parties
concerned, to encourage all parties to cooperate and to disclose
information on the whereabouts of the missing persons, to compile
updated lists of all missing and detained persons, and to coordinate
the excavation of mass graves in close consultations with the
International Criminal Tribunal.

82. During his recent visit to Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina,
the expert received full support from the representatives of the
Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and
the Republika Srpska in his efforts to establish such a multilateral
commission. He continues negotiations with other parties. The
multilateral commission shall, however, be established only if
all the parties involved, including the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(Serbia and Montenegro), commit themselves to cooperate.

VII. CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS

83. According to the information the special process has received,
more than 27,000 persons are missing in Bosnia and Herzegovina
and almost 3,000 persons in Croatia. These figures include
combatants who are missing as a direct result of armed confrontations,
but in most cases the disappearances allegedly occurred in the
context of "ethnic cleansing" and can therefore be classified
as enforced disappearances in the narrow sense of the Declaration
on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (hereafter
referred to as the Declaration). In the third preambular paragraph
of resolution 47/133, in which the General Assembly proclaimed
the Declaration, it defined the enforced disappearances as "in
the sense that persons are arrested, detained or abducted against
their will or otherwise deprived of their liberty by officials
of different branches or levels of Government, or by organized
groups or private individuals acting on behalf of, or with the
support, direct or indirect, consent or acquiescence of the Government,
followed by a refusal to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the
persons concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation
of their liberty, which places such persons outside the protection
of the law".

84. The Dayton Peace Agreement and the Basic Agreement on Eastern
Slavonia, together with Security Council resolutions 1031 (1995)
and 1037 (1995), constitute a solid basis for achieving peace
in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. A lasting peace can only
be obtained on the basis of justice and respect for human rights.
Since the people of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina have been
suffering for the last four years from the most serious and systematic
violations of human rights and humanitarian law in Europe since
the Second World War, the process of reconciliation which is vital
for achieving a lasting peace demands that truth be established
without further delay. In particular, the relatives of some 30,000
missing persons have the right to know the truth and to be properly
informed about the fate and the whereabouts of their husbands,
sons and other family members unaccounted for.

85. It is to be feared that the great majority of missing persons
in the territory of the former Yugoslavia have been victims of
arbitrary executions or armed confrontations and are buried in
more than 300 suspected mass graves in Bosnia and Herzegovina
and Croatia. The search for truth, therefore, includes the urgent
need to locate, guard and excavate these mass graves and to exhume
and identify the mortal remains therein. The responsibility for
carrying out excavations rests primarily with the Governments
of the countries where the suspected mass graves are located,
i.e. the Governments of the Republic of Croatia, the Republic
of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
and the Republika Srpska. International organizations and mechanisms
dealing with the tracing of missing persons such as the ICRC and
the special process have the task of monitoring the excavations
to ensure that they are carried out in a professional and impartial
manner. The expert is of the opinion that should the Governments
concerned be unwilling or unable to carry out the excavations
themselves, the mandate of the special process would also cover
excavation of mass graves with the assistance of professional
teams of forensic experts. Owing to the urgency of this matter,
the expert requests the Commission to consider this question and
to authorize the necessary financial resources.

86. The expert can only carry out his mandate with the full cooperation
of all Governments and authorities concerned. In this respect,
he wishes to thank the Governments of the Republic of Croatia
and the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina for their cooperation
from the beginning of the establishment of the mandate. He also
expresses his appreciation to the authorities of the Republika
Srpska, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the local
Serb community in Eastern Slavonia for their cooperation during
his recent mission to the field. The expert requests the Government
of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
to cooperate by inviting him to visit Belgrade, providing information
on the fate of the missing persons and actively participating
in the proposed multilateral commission on missing persons in
the territory of the former Yugoslavia. Furthermore, the expert
wishes to remind the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(Serbia and Montenegro) of its responsibility under the Declaration,
under the agreement with the Republic of Croatia on cooperation
in tracing missing persons and under the Dayton Peace Agreement
to investigate all cases of enforced disappearances for which
the Yugoslav National Army or paramilitary groups connected to
it were allegedly held responsible, and to provide complete and
precise information on the whereabouts of the missing persons.

87. The Government of the Republic of Croatia is requested to
continue its cooperation with the special process. In particular,
the expert wishes to remind that Government of its responsibility
under the Declaration and under the agreement with the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) on cooperation
in tracing missing persons to investigate all cases of enforced
disappearance for which the Croatian Army or paramilitary groups
connected to it were allegedly held responsible, including cases
which occurred during or after operations "Flash" and
"Storm", and to provide complete and precise information
on the whereabouts of the missing persons. Furthermore, in conformity
with the Dayton Peace Agreement, the Government of Croatia is
requested, through its good offices, to obtain and provide information
on the cases of missing persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina for
which the Bosnian Croats are allegedly held responsible.

88. The Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is
requested to continue cooperating with the special process. In
particular, the expert wishes to remind the Government of its
responsibility under the Declaration and under the Dayton Peace
Agreement to investigate all cases of enforced disappearances
for which the Bosnian Army or paramilitary groups connected to
it are allegedly held responsible, and to provide information
on the whereabouts of these missing persons.

89. The authorities of the Republika Srpska are requested to continue
cooperating with the special process. In particular, the expert
wishes to remind those authorities of their responsibility under
the Dayton Peace Agreement to guarantee him unrestricted access
and to provide information on the whereabouts of all cases of
disappearances for which Bosnian Serb forces are allegedly held
responsible. Moreover, the expert requests the authorities of
the Republika Srpska to respond to all individual tracing requests
transmitted by the special process to those authorities, and to
carry out the excavations of suspected mass graves in their territory,
in particular in the regions of Srebrenica and Prijedor. International
organizations and mechanisms dealing with the issue of missing
persons, such as the ICRC and the special process, shall be properly
informed and invited to monitor such excavations.

90. The authorities of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
are requested to continue cooperating with the special process.
In particular, the expert wishes to remind those authorities of
their responsibility under the Dayton Peace Agreement to guarantee
him unrestricted access and provide information on all cases of
disappearances for which the Bosnian Croat forces or the Bosnian
Army were allegedly held responsible. The expert requests the
authorities of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to establish
effective inter-ethnic tracing mechanisms within the Federation
and actively participate in the proposed multilateral commission
on missing persons. Furthermore, when excavations of mass graves
in the territory of the Federation are carried out, international
organizations and mechanisms dealing with the issue of missing
persons, such as the ICRC and the special process, shall be informed
and invited to monitor such excavations.

91. The ICRC, national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, the
High Representative, IFOR, OSCE, and United Nations bodies and
agencies such as the UNHCR, UNTAES, United Nations Mission in
Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH), and IPTF are requested to
cooperate/continue cooperation with the special process. In particular,
the expert requests IFOR and UNTAES to guard the suspected sites
of mass graves. Furthermore, he requests the High Representative,
the Ombudsperson, the Transitional Administrator of UNTAES and
the ICRC to actively participate in the proposed multilateral
commission on missing persons.

Annex

MAP OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA AND THE REPUBLIC OF BOSNIA AND
HERZEGOVINA

The boundaries and names shown on this map do not imply official
endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.